I refer to this as "illegal wiretapping." I think that pretty well covers the issue.
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 08:30 AMhow about "illegal spying on americans"?
Posted by benjoya at January 25, 2006 08:39 AMWell, I like "illegal wiretapping" because then you don't even go into the spying/surveillance issue and can strictly focus on the illegal aspect.
They are trying to spin this as "intelligence gathering" and "necessary surveillance" to protect us from the evil terrorists. By all means, if they think they can protect us from the evil terrorists by performing such necessary surveillance, we don't want to give them the chance to say we're soft on terrorists, or care more about terrorists than the safety of the American people. But they need to do it leaglly by obtaining warrants.
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 08:49 AMann's right on the money, since the talking point is that dems don't want to "spy" on terrorists, the illegal wiretapping meme separates out the terrorists and ordinary citizens.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2006 08:52 AMOf course, a "reframe" would be meaningless if the press refuses to go along, haha.
Guess there's no real problem there.
I do wonder how self respecting educated human being can sit in that room listening to the vile undisguised propaganda of Scottie McShit without tearing him limb from limb, or at least just mocking, scorning and insulting him from start to finish.
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 09:19 AMOrwell would be proud (aghast).
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 09:22 AMIt has never been illegal in the US to wiretap enemies of the US. We did it as far back as WWII.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 09:41 AMFifty-three moons have come and gone since the terrorist attacks. The Patriot Act was passed precisely to give the Justice Department a formidible weapon to use against terrorist conspirators. Where are the convictions? Where are the charges against defendents? Where are the cases?
It is staggering to me that the Justice Department has been able to obtain 14 convictions for individuals tied to Al Qaeda with all the powers that have been granted or assumed by them. How many of those convictions that can pass close scrutiny is impossible to tell since we have no idea--and will never possibly know--how sound the evidence was and how the process was rigged to garner the convictions.
I am all for killing, capturing, trying, and jailing terrorists. Our Justice Department, however, appears incapable of finishing the task. As the old adage says, "it takes 80% of the effort to finish the last 20% of the job."
Posted by obelus at January 25, 2006 09:50 AMavaroo rephrased:
You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X love America.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 25, 2006 09:55 AMobelus, it is rather suspicious with the legal and illegal actions the US has supposedly taken to track down terrorists, and not only have they not caught anyone but a mad blowtorcher, but they've jeopardized what lawsuits might be out there already. One would think the admin wasn't serious about protecting the US.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2006 09:57 AMIt has never been illegal in the US to wiretap enemies of the US. We did it as far back as WWII.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 09:41 AM
*****
Holy non sequitur, Batman!
It IS ILLEGAL to wiretap Americans in America without a warrant, dumbshit simpleton. See FISA.
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 09:57 AMAmen, GoW!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2006 10:00 AMIt has never been illegal in the US to wiretap enemies of the US. We did it as far back as WWII.
Bingo!! If there is a formal state of war the Commander-in-Chief has the right to supersede constitutional rights.
Problem here is; Is there a formal state of war? Some will argue that Congress can only "declare war",and it must be on a state government. The Islamofascists are "transnational." The other arguement is; that the joint resolution (Sept. 14,2001)of Congress,was in effect a formal declaration of war" thus conferming war powers on the president.
Its only a matter of time till the Bushies rename "constitutional democracy" to "benevolent dictatorship"
Posted by Cookie Monster at January 25, 2006 10:07 AMIt IS ILLEGAL to wiretap Americans in America without a warrant, dumbshit simpleton. See FISA.
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 09:57 AM
wiretaps of Americans in America >>NOT!!
Posted by Jim G at January 25, 2006 10:17 AMHaven't you all figured it out yet? The ends justify the means, plain and simple.
Hell, next there will plans for a wall along the Mexican border. Then the need for proof of ID to travel anywhere in the country. How about putting cameras up in population centers and have facial recognition cameras look for "bad guys".
Posted by the professor at January 25, 2006 10:19 AMIT"S OVER - DEAD ISSUE
The television pundits [all channels] will now officially refer to it as the "terrorist surveillance program" and the frightened Dem-Politicians will be hard-pressed to explain why they oppose surveillance on terrorists.
MOVE ALONG - NOTHING TO SEE HERE
---------------------------------
Jim G,
It is illegal to record phone conversations of Americans without their consent or a warrant.
It does not matter from where the call originated...it is an American whose conversation is being monitored.
"It IS ILLEGAL to wiretap Americans in America without a warrant"
Not if they're talking to terrorists, it isn't. We've always wiretapped our enemies. It would be stupid not to.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 10:49 AM"It does not matter from where the call originated...it is an American whose conversation is being monitored."
and that's ok if they are talking to an AQ operative. There's nothing about being an american that says you have the right to speak to those seeking to harm the US with complete privacy. In fact, if that's who you're talking to, you have zero expectation of privacy.
nd that's ok if they are talking to an AQ operative. There's nothing about being an american that says you have the right to speak to those seeking to harm the US with complete privacy. In fact, if that's who you're talking to, you have zero expectation of privacy.
You mean anything other then the Constitution! Are you really this naive?
Posted by Goose1 at January 25, 2006 11:18 AMfolks, you've taken roo's semantics bait. see you in a few hundred pointless comments debating the meaning of the word "enemies."
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 11:19 AM"You mean anything other then the Constitution!"
The constitution provides privacy rights to those seeking to harm the US? Really? where?
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 11:20 AMWhat's in a name? I guess Shakespere was'nt a republican. The hookers in Phoenix tried calling themselves "erectile organ service technicians", and Sheriff Joe Arpaio was'nt fooled, either.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 25, 2006 11:27 AM"It IS ILLEGAL to wiretap Americans in America without a warrant"
Not if they're talking to terrorists, it isn't. We've always wiretapped our enemies. It would be stupid not to.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 10:49 AM
*****
Which is why FISA allows 72 hours post-tapping to acquire a warrant, you dense piece of shit.
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 11:40 AM"Which is why FISA allows 72 hours post-tapping to acquire a warrant"
It's never been required to have a warrant to wiretap terrorists, no matter where they are.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 11:45 AMIt's nice that you have that opinion about the law, assaroo. We understand that's your view.
Now, how about finding some support in the law for your bare assertion. Should be easy for you to find since according to you "we've always wiretapped our enemies".
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 11:55 AM"Which is why FISA allows 72 hours post-tapping to acquire a warrant"
It's never been required to have a warrant to wiretap terrorists, no matter where they are.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 11:45 AM
*****
You are one ignorant fuck.
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 11:58 AM"It's nice that you have that opinion about the law"
it's not opinion. If I've somehow missed the enactment of the "Privacy for Terrorists" law, please let me know when and where it was passed.
"according to you "we've always wiretapped our enemies"."
you might remember a little dust-up we got into once, known as WWII?
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 11:58 AMTry this, eu.
Hitler on Line One
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060119.html
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 12:01 PMdumbassaroo,
We can wiretap, legally, anybody outside this country. We cannot wiretap an American citizen without a FISA warrant. If it is impractical to obtain said warrant before said wiretapping, a warrant can be obtained retroactively within 72 hours. The purpose of this is to protect the American citizens 4th Amendment rights.
You cannot be this fucking dense, can you troll?
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 12:04 PMit's not opinion. If I've somehow missed the enactment of the "Privacy for Terrorists" law, please let me know when and where it was passed.
By that you are implying that they are only spying on terrorists - and your source for that fact would be? Also, if the program is so necessary and working so well, why have there been no arrests? You claim they are spying on terrorists and criminals, why haven't they locked up those terrorists and criminals?
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 12:05 PM
It's never been required to have a warrant to wiretap terrorists, no matter where they are. Posted by avarooOne would think that will all these wiretaps on terrorists, the Bush government would be able to obtain their phone numbers, records, locations, and names. That would make it easy to capture, arrest, and prosecute terrorists. Strange, but that isn't happening. It reminds me of the War on Terror: any dead person is instantly transmogrified into a terrorist. Now, anyone whose phone is tapped is suddenly a terrorist and an old constitutional notion as "probable cause" suddenly becomes quaint. Remember, the CIA did know of a couple of terrorists living in San Diego. They did nothing about it, but Tenet received the Medal of Freedom for his role.
US agents told to back off bin Laden’s and Saudi Royals soon after Bush becomes president. (Ananova, BBC)
TSP means "Terrorists Surveillance Program." Sounds so much better than Domestic Spying Program doesn't it? God, these guys are good. So now Bush can say we are against the Terrorists Surveillance Program. God job Rove. Oh, and by-the-way Democrats. While you sit back and let these word masters twist the truth, you are helping to broadstroke people like me with the likes of you.
Arlen, Arlen, Arlen, your hearings "for the pResident to present his case" is so laughable. Bush has given you the finger so many times, and yet you make such a ridiculous statement. I know Bush is going to give you a reason why he is spying. Arlen, guess what. There is no tooth fairy.
On Today's Show, McCain is reframing the spying issue by saying that he "can't judge until he knows the scope of the spying." Okey dokey McCain. Let's just forget the main issue of Bush not getting the legal warrants and breaking the law. Let's concentrate on the scope of his illegal spying. Oh, and by-the-way, McCain says Congress was briefed and Matt Lauder said there was no resistance to illegal spying in that briefing. Lie, repeat, lie, repeat, lie, repeat.
Posted by Judith at January 25, 2006 06:10 AM
That would make it easy to capture, arrest, and prosecute terrorists.
Someone just said to me the other day, "I can't get away from telemarketers, but they can't find Osama?"
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 12:12 PMHe can call it what ever he wants but the response should be "we're against spying on Americans." End of story.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 25, 2006 12:32 PM"He can call it what ever he wants but the response should be "we're against spying on Americans."
Not if they're planning to hurt us, we're not. There's nothing sacred about being an american that provides a reaonable expectation of privacy to a Tim McVeigh, for example. Same if you're talking to AQ. I don't care if you're American or not, if you're on the line with zarqawi I'm FOR tapping your line.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 12:50 PM"One would think that will all these wiretaps on terrorists, the Bush government would be able to obtain their phone numbers, records, locations, and names."
With cell phones? I doubt OBL and zarqawi and their ilk have phone service listed in their names in the phone book. Don't you?
"That would make it easy to capture, arrest, and prosecute terrorists. Strange, but that isn't happening."
I'd think it would be preferable to just off these people where they're found, why bring them here for the bother of a trial? They're not really due a trial in the US. We wouldn't know how many of these people caught through wiretapping are simply offed wherever they are.
"Now, anyone whose phone is tapped is suddenly a terrorist"
It's actually the other way around
"and an old constitutional notion as "probable cause" suddenly becomes quaint."
Probable cause doesn't apply to a war overseas as it would to a criminal action here in the US.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 12:58 PMassaroo's article (from PBS) is interesting as a short history of domestic and international wiretaps and intercepts from WWII on, which obviously predates the enactment of FISA in 1978.
Nevertheless, the article does not support his (false) opinion that the law currently permits warrantless electronic surveillence of terrorists or other enemies located in America, as it clearly states that both of the two federal statutes dealing with wiretaps, domestic and international, "require a court order for every tap".
Worth a look.
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 01:00 PMThe program has been going on for years. We haven't heard about a lot of success, other than some guys who were going to attack the Brooklyn Bridge with welding torches.
Seriously, if that's the BEST success story there is, and I hacen't heard any better, then the program is pretty ineffective against terrorists. If it isn't bering used to catch terrorists, and from the lack of results it isn't, then whom is it being used against?
There is tremendous potential for abuse by the NSA and their enablers. They can data-mine to the point where they can gerrymander so precisely that they would never lose another election. They can monitor their political opponents, and when people are identified inside a facility as the ones who parked a car with an offending bumper sticker, it seems as though this is happening.
We have heard of drug dealers and the like, bad guys for sure but only a local threat, put away because the Patriot Act allowed police to erode just a little further the protection from warrantless search and seizure.
I'm not advocating for drug dealers to practice their trade unmolested, but I would prefer that to having my own privacy violated without my being aware of it. I know who the drug dealers are, but I don't know who is looking through my sock drawer.
Posted by Repack Rider at January 25, 2006 01:01 PM"Nevertheless, the article does not support his (false) opinion that the law currently permits warrantless electronic surveillence of terrorists or other enemies located in America"
it does if the other half is not located in the US.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 01:01 PMWhat makes you think anyone wants to look through your sock drawer Repack?
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 01:03 PM"They can data-mine to the point where they can gerrymander so precisely that they would never lose another election. They can monitor their political opponents, and when people are identified inside a facility as the ones who parked a car with an offending bumper sticker, it seems as though this is happening."
This shows tremendous faith in the abilities of the federal government, faith wholly unjustified by anything in our past hundreds of years of history.
Not if they're planning to hurt us, we're not. There's nothing sacred about being an … if you're on the line with zarqawi I'm FOR tapping your line. Posted by avarooYou’re not planning to hurt Americans? Does that mean you do it accidentally, because so far Bush’s neglect has cost us three office towers, one mid-sized city, and thousands of causalities in a war which he lied to sell. As Americans, we have a reasonable expectation that our government obeys the Constitution that it swore to uphold. If it does not, then it is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. The government can tap bin Laden’s line, Zarqawi’s line without a warrant. If the government discovers anyone in the US on the other side if the call, it can obtain a warrant.
With cell phones? I doubt OBL and zarqawi and their ilk have phone service listed in their names in the phone book. Don't you? Posted by avarooCell and satellite phones leave records. Don’t you know that?
…preferable to just off these people where they're found... Posted by avarooThat is punishment before proof of guilt which would make us no better. That certainly sounds like a Republican because it sounds like Osama. Suppose they accidentally punish someone in your family that way, is it still good?
It's actually the other way around Posted by avarooThat is an assertion presented without evidence
Probable cause doesn't apply to a war overseas as it would to a criminal action here in the US.Posted by avarooThat is not what you have been arguing. You have been demanding wiretaps on Americans in America. Posted by Mike at January 25, 2006 01:13 PM
Now, now, assaroo, you must try to resist those urges (voices?) to be dishonestly argumentative. You know the article doesn't say that.
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 01:16 PMWell, the American public seems to be waking up!
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 01:20 PM"You’re not planning to hurt Americans? Does that mean you do it accidentally, because so far Bush’s neglect has cost us three office towers, one mid-sized city, and thousands of causalities in a war which he lied to sell."
This is why you (and those like you) are not part of the serious conversation. You're background noise. If you want to be taken seriously, act like you're serious and stop the nonsense.
"As Americans, we have a reasonable expectation that our government obeys the Constitution that it swore to uphold."
I agree.
"If it does not, then it is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. The government can tap bin Laden’s line, Zarqawi’s line without a warrant."
Yes, it can, even if either of them are talking to Americans. And they can tap whoever those Americans are talking to unless OBL somehow dialed a wrong number and got the local Pizza Hut on the first call. Cause if you're an American talking to OBL on the phone, you're an....uh.....associate of AQ. Got it?
"If the government discovers anyone in the US on the other side if the call, it can obtain a warrant."
It does not have to.
"Cell and satellite phones leave records. Don’t you know that?"
Not always. That's....uh......why terrorists don't use land lines.
"That is punishment before proof of guilt which would make us no better."
We punished a lot of Germans and Japnese without trials. Were we supposed to bring every Nazi to the US for trial?
"Suppose they accidentally punish someone in your family that way, is it still good?"
If someone in my family is an associate of AQ, I would hope they'd be dealt with the same way any other AQ operative is. Just becuase they're related to me doesn't give them the green light to commit terror in the US.
"That is not what you have been arguing. You have been demanding wiretaps on Americans in America."
I haven't demanded anything. But yes, if you're an American and you're on the phone with OBL, I say tap your phone.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 01:20 PMAccording to the latest Gallup poll, Bush only has the support of the kool aid drinkers. The majority of americans are against this kind of domestic spying.
the p in gop stands for peeping tom.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 25, 2006 01:21 PMeu, the article does not say that a warrant is required for conversations between someone inside the US and someone outside.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 01:21 PM"The majority of americans are against this kind of domestic spying."
There is no poll that asks about what is actually happening.
There is no poll that asks about what is actually happening.
You might want to actually read what is in the linked article:
The poll, conducted Jan. 20-22, finds half of Americans (51%) believe the Bush administration was wrong in wiretapping terrorist-linked telephone conversations without first obtaining a court order, while 46% say it was right.
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 01:31 PMHonestly I don't know why you guys persist.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 01:36 PMHonestly I don't know why you guys persist.
LOL. I don't know why, either. But we're halfway to 100 comments! I think roo only gets paid after 100.
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 01:37 PMit should be "Terrorist's Surveillance Program", with BushCo being the terrorists. Bush's whole regime is build around the idea of painting stripes on a donkey and calling it a Zebra.
Posted by T2 at January 25, 2006 01:57 PM"You’re not planning to hurt Americans? Does that mean you do it accidentally, because so far Bush’s neglect has cost us three office towers, one mid-sized city, and thousands of causalities in a war which he lied to sell."
This is why you (and those like you) are not part of the serious conversation. You're background noise. If you want to be taken seriously, act like you're serious and stop the nonsense.
You always make me laugh avaroo. By the way how old are you? Becuase you argue like my 12 year old.
Posted by at January 25, 2006 02:13 PMavaroo continues in denial:
"eu, the article does not say that a warrant is required for conversations between someone inside the US and someone outside."
I didn't read the article myself, but regardless of what that article may or may not have said, the FISA laws are unequivocal on this issue. It would do you well to read Eriposte's extensive debunking of the very points you continue to bring up here. Here's a sample:
"1. Bush did not violate the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)
TALKING POINT: Bush's secret, warrantless spying on Americans is consistent with FISA statutes.
FACT: Utterly and completely false. The administration has repeatedly admitted that what they did violates the FISA statutes (and so did some of its legal defenders).
TALKING POINT: The wording of the FISA statute allows the Bush administration to do what they did.
FACT: False.
TALKING POINT: FISA allows unlimited warrantless surveillance of American citizens and U.S. permanent residents ("U.S. persons").
FACT: False.
TALKING POINT: Bush's actions are not scandalous since the administration retroactively informed the FISA court about its spying.
FACT: False.
2. Bush did not break the law
TALKING POINT: Bush's secret, warrantless spying on Americans is constitutional and legal.
FACT: False and false. In fact, the administration's withholding critical information from Congress was also likely a crime, one that violated the National Security Act. Not to mention, it appears that the warrantless spying was started even without a Presidential Executive Order and possibly even before 9/11.
TALKING POINT: Bush did not violate the National Security Act by not briefing appropriate members of Congress.
FACT: False."
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006455.php
He also provided links to support the arguments. Please take some time to read and then come back with your argument. There's no need to nitpick and parse words - Bush has very likely broken current FISA laws, which is what the NONPARTISAN Congressional Research Service Concluded, some renouned Conservative Scholars, and the reason why prominent Conservatives like Specter, Brownback, Graham, and Lugar are questioning his role in the matter:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=6607
I repeat my question that continues to remain unanswered:
"explain to me how illegally wiretapping American citizens somehow protects us versus obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER starting a wiretap on alleged Al Qaeda suspects.
IOW, why would you believe that we could not obtain evidence under our current FISA laws legally when we have a 72 hour window RETROACTIVELY (after the initial wiretap) to obtain such a warrant? Can you help me out with that one? Can you tell me how wiretapping Americans ILLEGALLY without a warrant rather than Al Qaeda members somehow protects us better versus legally obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER the initial wiretap?"
No matter how you attempt to spin this, an American is sitting on the other end of the wire being illegally wiretapped. And in accordance to the FBI, the results of these wiretaps likely HINDERED our efforts to combat terrorism:
"F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.
As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for the eavesdropping program, which did not seek court warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but ultimately deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.
President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program, which focused on the international communications of some Americans and others in the United States, as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."
But the results of the program looked very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html
So if this is Bush's idea of protecting us against terrorism, I'd hate to see his definition of incompetence.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 25, 2006 03:18 PMWhy is it that Ivaroo always misses the bigger picture or the point of discussion? Evidently, he thinks spying on Americans is just fine, and if a few million get caught in the data mining, oh well. He also believes that it is okay regardless of the Constitution, but when did any of these people worry about that "piece of paper." Still waiting for that list of your liberal beliefs.
Posted by Judith at January 25, 2006 03:50 PM"It IS ILLEGAL to wiretap Americans in America without a warrant"
Not if they're talking to terrorists, it isn't. We've always wiretapped our enemies. It would be stupid not to.
Posted by avaroo at January 25, 2006 10:49 AM
Ivaroo, are you really that stupid that you don't get it?
Posted by Judith at January 25, 2006 03:53 PMOr perhaps more to the point, Judith:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-Amendment 4, U.S. Constitution
Now how the hell did those words ever become so ambiguous?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 25, 2006 04:02 PMThis shows tremendous faith in the abilities of the federal government, faith wholly unjustified by anything in our past hundreds of years of history.
Obviously you are not old enough to remember Watergate, the Enemies List, the illegal break-ins and wiretaps of the Nixon era, and the "Plumbers" who were all in favor of killing people to advance a political cause.
It happened once, in my lifetime. What is to keep it from happening again, given that the current president is even less ethical than Nixon or Reagan?
Posted by Repack Rider at January 25, 2006 04:05 PM"Not if they're talking to terrorists, it isn't. We've always wiretapped our enemies. It would be stupid not to."
It is still illegal without a warrant, no matter who an American is talking to outside the U.S. if that American is on U.S. soil, in accordance to FISA laws.
Now wouldn't it be strange that Bush couldn't possibly obtain a warrant somehow if he had such a terrific lead with evidence to support himself that we have a terrorist on the line talking to someone in the U.S.?
I mean, how fucking pathetically incompetent are you making Bush out to be here? Why on earth would FISA, a SECRET organization that has allowed tens of thousands of ALL requests for wiretap warrants prior to 2003 since its inception in 1978, even from Bush prior to 2003, having turned down NOT ONE of those requests prior to 2003 NOT grant Bush a warrant? Talk about absurdity.
Surely your fearless Republican leader in charge is not that incompetent, is he?
Posted by at January 25, 2006 04:11 PMIf it is ok tgo spy without a warrant then why was bush for spying with a warrant before he was against it?
Posted by goose1 at January 25, 2006 04:39 PMIf it is ok to spy without a warrant then why was bush for spying with a warrant before he was against it?
And why, oh why, would they ever have to go to FISA in the first place?
In 2002, there were 1238 FISA warrants issued, up from 934 in 2001. All requests were granted in both years.
In 2003, the number jumped to 1727, and in 2004, to 1758.
In 2003, the FISA Court rejected 4 and modified 79 of the Government's requests for warrants.
In 2004, the Court modified 94 of the applications. None were denied, but three were withdrawn by the Government before the FISA court acted on it.
stats from Talk Left, btw. But clearly, they knew they needed warrants all along or they never would have bothered. But obviously, they weren't doing a good job with those applications (maybe Harriet Meirs was filling them out) and they got tired of being asked all those pesky questions.
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 05:30 PM"Now how the hell did those words ever become so ambiguous?"
MisterOpus1, they only became ambiguous the moment when GWB was sworn in as pResident.
Posted by Judith at January 25, 2006 07:24 PMI've enjoyed sitting back and listening to the debate..er, the arguing and wanted to thank you all for some of the most bizarre posts I've seen.
I do have a question or two?
Someone mentioned that their had only been a dozen or so arrests/prosecutions of local AQ guys. Only about 16 if I recall the post. I don't know if this is true or not. But that number stuck in my head.
I noted that the number of FISA warrants issued since 911 have more than doubled the pre-911 requests and that since 911 approximately 5000 Fisa warrants have been issued.
I'm also told by you posters that Probable Cause was the Standard for these very extensive and lawyer prepared warrants. Which is the general standard for a Criminal warrant.
Now warrants are used in CRIMINAL investigations. You know we the jury find you Osama Bin Laden guilty of this or that crime. etc. So I guess thats what Kerry wanted to do with this war on terror, make it a crime show on terror. We should let the Attorney General fight it.
But back to my original question...
With approximately 5000 Warrants issued based upon Probable cause and only a small number of prosecutions, then why no more arrests? How could 5000 warrants produce only double digit convictions...What is Bush waiting for? If he has probable cause to ask for and recieve these warrants then why no follow through.
And what about these judges? They approve 5000 warrants and no one is arrested. Maybe they better think twice about the credibility of the evidence that gave rise to the probable cause....
OR MAYBE JUST MAYBE....
THESE 5000 warrants were used for other purposes. To track and coordinate where certain terrorists were working or were up to.... Maybe we don't know everything that there is too know.
Or maybe you just believe Bush gets his rocks off listening to the telephone conversations and then doesn't use the information for convictions at all....
He is just a peeping Tom, he and Laura use them to get off.....
Yep, to be a liberal there is no depths that you will go to support your own ignorant beliefs and preconceptions.
Bush doesn't want to fight the terrorists, he is just wanting to get his rocks off by listening in on law abiding Americans....
Brevity is the soul of wit, Crape.
Less prefaces, more matter!
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 08:20 PMCarpe,
Despite your biting sarcasm, I think you bring up an interesting point to ponder: what exactly was Bush doing listening to those wiretaps?
We assume he is listening to them merely because of possible Al Qaeda links and suspicions. I'm more than willing to give him this wide lattitude on such suspicions, PROVIDED the FISA courts have allowed him the warrant for such a wiretap.
You see, neither you nor I have the evidence that Bush uses to support his cases brought to the FISA courts for the wiretaps. However, FISA does examine such evidence and bases their decisions on granting those wiretaps accordingly. So what is their record of rejection?:
"From 1979 through 2002 there were 15,264 surveillance warrants issued by the FISA court, clearly displaying that the process is quite favorable to the government seeking such wiretaps. Further supporting this is the amount of surveillance warrants which were rejected during that same 23 year period, ZERO. That is right; in a 23 year period not one request was denied.
From 2002 until now, only four such requests were denied.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__051219_in_memoriam_3a_the_rul.htm
That's pretty significant- it indicates the FISA courts are pretty damn reasonable in allowing such wiretaps. And let's also keep in mind that this Administration could start a wiretap and ask for the warrant 3 days later if need be.
But only after 2002 (I said 2003 earlier, sorry) did the FISA courts in their sound rationale examine the evidence brought to them by Bush and saw he didn't have sufficient evidence on 4 cases, and denied those wiretaps. They also asked him to modify his requests a few several dozen times lately as well.
It just begs the question, given the history of FISA broadly granting so many warrants unabated, just how bad was Bush's evidence given to the FISA judges to be the first President to be rejected multiple times?
And then you reaize that at that point, Bush said to hell with them and went his own route.
Weeeeelll, how effective was his own route? Let the FBI tell you how effective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html
That's simply pathetic.
So back to the original question at hand - what exactly was Bush doing listening to these phone calls if we were to assume there were so many silly leads? I think there's two central core issues at hand:
1. The means of database filtering and sweeping up these phone calls is absolutely pathetic. A 2 yr. old could see this is a complete waste of time and resources of the NSA and the FBI, which the article posted makes damn clear. This needs revamped bad, and it needs to be legal, BTW.
2. Bush has had this propensity of power-grabbing. Time and again the Supreme Court has struck down his attempts at gaining so much Executive absolute power, whether it be holding American citizens without due process, do assisted suicide in Oregon. It's pretty clear that the courts and our legal system does NOT want to grant the President so much overriding authority.
This fits the bill of Dubya pretty well. And it is interesting, to say the least, given that it has always been the Conservative criticism of Liberals who want such a big government that tells you how to feel and behave.
But the truth is quite the opposite. You Conservatives have the biggest, the most secretive, and the most intrusive government we have ever witnessed, and you have no idea how to make the government smaller. Are we so surprised that the last President to actually size down the government the best out of the last 4 Presidents including Bush Jr. was actually a Democrat?
If you are surprised, kindly allow your head to drop out of your ass now.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 25, 2006 08:34 PMBush doesn't want to fight the terrorists, he is just wanting to get his rocks....Posted by carpediemIt is true that Bush does not want to capture bin Laden. It is politically more rewarding to have a live threat so he and Rove can continue to scare Americans with Al Qa'ida. As to his getting his rocks off, we know the FBI has infiltrated a Quaker peace group in Florida and investigated people protesting with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in front of Halliburton. Those are not going to be fruitful searches for "terrorist" unless you define a terrorist as anyone who doesn't support Bush in his incompetent presidency. Nixon indulged in similar activities.
This is why you (and those like you) are not part of the serious conversation. You're background noise. If you want to be taken seriously, act like you're serious and stop the nonsense. Posted by avarooActually, that is why defenders of this administration cannot be taken seriously. You claim that Bush is your defender, yet he ignored all warning about 9-11, did nothing to prevent it, ran like a scared rabbit during that terrible event. Instead of going after bin Laden in Afghanistan, he diverted our resources to fight a war in Iraq that was predicated on lies and disinformation. I appreciate you ad hominem because, in the final analysis, that is all you have.
Not always. That's....uh......why terrorists don't use land lines. We punished a lot of Germans and Japnese without trials. ... Posted by avarooYou may not be aware but the allies did subject both the German and the Japanese war criminals to trials: Nuremberg and Tokyo Actually, every cell and satellite phone call leaves a computer record. They can both be pinpointed as to location and caller. That is why they don't use phones, land or portable, directly. Even internet messages leave copies on servers they pass through, including to and from ISP data.
…There is no poll that asks about what is actually happening. Posted by avarooI'm glad you know exactly what is occurring, because no one else has the details on Bush's secret illegal activities. There is one poll that shows 52% of Americans would approve of impeachment for warrantless wiretapping: y a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12. The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." Posted by Mike at January 25, 2006 09:01 PM
"It is still illegal without a warrant, no matter who an American is talking to outside the U.S."
No, we've always tapped people who were our enemies, even if they were talking to someone inside the US. You don't get a pass to talk to terrorists just because you happen to be inside the US.
Posted by avaroo at January 26, 2006 12:34 PM"Actually, that is why defenders of this administration cannot be taken seriously. You claim that Bush is your defender"
any president who is ordering wiretaps of terrorists is defending the US, that's his/her job.
"You may not be aware but the allies did subject both the German and the Japanese war criminals to trials"
Not every Nazi was tried. Nor every Japanese, we killed thousands of them without trial.
"every cell and satellite phone call leaves a computer record"
you don't know who owns every cell phone or who is placing calls on them. Terrorists don't go to the cell phone store and buy registered cell phones. Think BEFORE you type.
"I'm glad you know exactly what is occurring, because no one else has the details on Bush's secret illegal activities."
You think maybe that's so the terrorists don't know either?
"There is one poll that shows 52% of Americans would approve of impeachment for warrantless wiretapping"
not warrantless wiretapping of people conversing with AQ and like groups.
Posted by avaroo at January 26, 2006 12:39 PM